Agenda item - BH2018/00937 - 239 - 243 Kingsway Hove - Full Planning

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of an eight storey building to provide 37no residential dwellings (C3) with associated access, parking and landscaping

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Ward Affected: Wish

1.             Principal Planning Officer, Wayne Nee, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, photographs and elevational drawings detailing the proposed scheme. The main considerations for this application relate to the principle of development, financial viability and affordable housing provision, the impact on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, the proposed access arrangements and related traffic implications, and the impact on neighbouring properties’ amenities.

 

2.             The Committee were informed that the scheme is for 37 flats comprising 33 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3-bedroom flats, with 4 affordable housing units and the site is not in a Conservation Area. The scheme has been amended so that the building line along Braemore Road is maintained. The balconies now have a curved design with a setback on the fifth floor. 6 metres separate the development from the first property in Braemore Road. 26 parking spaces are to be created, which is two more than the 24 spaces suggested. The committee were informed the Parking Survey found that the maximum occupancy of on street parking had not been reached overnight in the area.

 

Public Speakers

 

3.             Mrs Urpi spoke to the committee on behalf of Braemore Road and Berriedale Road Residents Association in opposition to the scheme. There is precedent for larger scale buildings along the seafront, however these cover the entire block and are narrow in plan form. This proposal will adjoin the existing neighbour to the west and would set a new overbearing precedent along Kingsway. There are serious concerns relating to scale, siting and massing. The 6-metre gap to the first property in Braemore Road is unacceptable. The report contains arbitrary statements regarding impact on neighbours. The proposal is not considered to comply with policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan. The health of the occupiers of first property in Braemore Road when using the garden is a major concern.

 

4.             Mr Coley stated to the committee that there was an overwhelming concern regarding the overbearing and dominant nature of the proposal which is to be forward of the original building line. The proposal would eclipse neighbours’ properties and reduce privacy to zero. The stepping out of the building line will ruin the sweep of the seafront aesthetic. The 8-storey block will overbear the two storey houses that will be in shadow. The remaining two houses will give a ‘missing tooth’ appearance to the seafront.

 

Questions for speakers

 

5.             Councillor Phelim MacCafferty was informed that the 6-metre gap seemed unfair as other developments have been sited further away.

 

6.             Councillor Joe Miller was informed that the proposal would look into adjoining properties with the outside space overlooked. The Committee were informed that the entrance to the car park to the rear of the development was a concern for the health of children in the neighbouring gardens. The loss of light from the development and the overbearing impact are considered unacceptable.

 

7.             Councillor Daniel Yates was informed that the scheme will be attached to the existing property to the west.

 

8.             Councillor Gill Williams was informed that the principle was not being objected to, just this scheme as the current form was not suitable for this small site.

 

9.             Councillor Dee Simson was informed that external walls of the currently adjoining neighbouring property to the west will be rebuilt following demolition of the existing properties.

 

Ward Councillor speakers

 

10.          Councillor Robert Nemeth and Councillor Garry Peltzer Dunn echoed the residents’ issues. It was highlighted that other developments are set back from the front and this should be the same for this scheme. The design of having half the block stepped down is an ugly feature, as well as the link to the existing adjoining house. It is considered that the proposal will result in overlooking and loss of sunlight to the neighbouring properties to the rear of the site and the 6-metre gap between them is too small. It was also considered to be detrimental to lose the existing gardens. Roof gardens and other vegetation would be beneficial to the scheme.

 

Questions to Ward Councillors

 

11.          Councillor Joe Miller was informed that the Ward Councillors agreed that the proposal would be overbearing in height and proximity to the first property in Braemore Road.

 

12.          Councillor Siriol Hugh-Jones was informed that the proposal’s front building line would be forward of the existing.

 

Speaker for the Applicant

 

13.          Mr Wood, the applicant’s agent, spoke to the committee in support of the scheme. The committee were informed that the feedback on the scheme had been taken onboard and the final design is high quality, improving Hove’s seafront. It is noted that Brighton and Hove City Council need more homes. The scheme has been amended to reflect residents’ concerns by removing the side windows and thereby overlooking of neighbours. The scheme is respectful of the seafront setting and is not considered to be dominating but to enhance the setting. 10% affordable housing, equivalent to 4 units and S106 Planning obligation have been included.

 

Questions for the speaker

 

14.          Councillor Joe Miller was informed by Jamie Barrett (also from the agent), that the design with a step down on the side was preferred by the local societies and believes this design to be good.

 

15.          Councillor Gill Williams was informed that the local residents have been consulted and considered, and the scheme has been adjusted to reflect the consultations.

 

16.          Councillor Dee Simson was informed that the scheme is aligned with the properties in Braemore Road. The front building line has been pushed forward following analysis of the overall curve of Kingsway.

 

17.          Councillor Siriol Hugh-Jones was informed that the energy efficiency of the scheme has been found to be acceptable. A green roof could be included in the scheme.

 

Questions to Officers

 

18.          Councillor Sue Shanks having asked if the site was a brownfill site was informed that the principle of development was acceptable as the land use would be the same.

 

19.          Councillor Joe Miller having expressed concerns regarding the streetscene was informed that the step down in the design would accommodate the balance in the streetscene against the three remaining houses facing Kingsway.

 

20.          Councillor Dee Simson was informed that a condition had been added to the application regarding the making good the side elevation of the currently attached property to the west of the proposal.

 

21.          Councillor Carol Theobald was informed that following the demolition of the three dwellings on the site that there would be a 1 metre gap between the remaining westerly neighbour and the development.

 

Debate

 

22.          Councillor Dee Simson felt the design was good overall. Concerns were expressed relating to the streetscene and how the frontage would look with the scheme at one end of the block between Berriedale and Braemore Roads.

 

23.          Councillor Joe Miller did not find the ‘drop down’ a good design with an adverse effect on the seafront streetscene. A scheme covering the entire block would be better. The curved nature of the Kingsway was understood in relation to the building line. The scheme was considered to be overbearing with overlooking issues for the surrounding properties with loss of sunlight. It was felt that the impact of the car park was an issue.

 

24.          Councillor Carol Theobald considered the loss of light for neighbouring family homes to be a concern, as well as the forward building line and the cramped appearance of the scheme in relation to the site.

 

25.          The Committee were invited to vote on the officer’s recommendation to be MINDED TO GRANT permission.

 

Vote: For = 3, Against = 7, Abstentions = 0.

 

26.          Councillor Joe Miller proposed a refusal, Councillor Daniel Yates seconded, on the grounds of the impact on streetscene, overbearing impact on the properties to the west, the height and massing at the back of the proposal, loss of sunlight for neighbours and the over development of the site.

 

27.          The meeting was adjourned for 4 minutes whilst legal and planning advice was sought by the Chair. Upon recommencement Councillor Miller agreed to remove the loss of sunlight from the proposed reasons for refusal.

 

28.          The Committee were invited to vote on the motion to refuse the application against the officer’s recommendation for the reasons proposed by Councillor Miller and to authorise the Planning Manager to word the refusal on the reasons proposed. Should the application go to appeal the committee agreed that the S106 heads of terms be accepted as set out in the report.

 

Vote: For = 7, Against = 3, Abstentions = 0.

 

Recorded Vote: Councillors For: Williams, Theobald, Fishleigh, Miller, Shanks, Simson, Yates. Against: Hill, Hugh-Jones, Mac Cafferty.

 

RESOLVED: That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposed development by reason of its footprint, forward projecting building line, height and mass in relation to the neighbouring properties would result in an incongruous addition that fails to respect the streetscene and prevailing pattern of development. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies CP12 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One and QD5 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan. 

 

2.    The development, by reason of its height, massing, forward projection would result in an overly dominant development that would have an overbearing and unneighbourly impact. The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site. In addition, the positioning of balconies and the height and scale would result in overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CP12 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.